Ceren Pekdemir

Introduction

Issue areas concerned with sustainable practice are characterised by a growing number of standards and regulations. Particularly around the production of global public goods, the new global public domain has been subject to contending centres of economic and political power. Many elements of the regulatory process have been transferred to both public and private actors in global governance, on topics as diverse as human rights, the environment, health, trade and finance.

In consequence, global governance for sustainable development is considered as having various sources of authority and power. Next to mandatory laws and regulations, also more flexible and voluntary forms of regulation and implementation are offered. This phenomenon has led to the observation that many policy domains in international relations are characterised by fragmentation. Fragmentation is regarded as problematic when the capacity of governments or international organisations is weakened in their desired effects or more generally, if it constrains the efficient and effective realisation of generally accepted public values.

The changes in global governance and the accompanying growth in regulatory complexity also spurred the quest for cohesion, sometimes also referred to as ‘convergence’. Initiatives for cohesion and the development of common global standards have brought the interests of public and private interests together in areas such as environmental, labour and social issues. Cohesion in regulations is considered favourable in the production for global public goods, for instance when standards, certification requirements and mutual recognition agreements converge in global value chains.

Characteristics of fragmentation and cohesion can be observed in many different issue areas of sustainable development. Issue fields are rooted in specific institutional contexts. For this reason, many governance approaches have developed in distinctive ways. The governance systems of some issue areas appear to have more regulatory cohesion, whereas other issue areas appear fragmented. It is assumed that some governance systems are more conducive to realise sustainable change than others. However, elaborate explorations why this is the case were identified to be lacking, and the formulated research questions intend to fill this knowledge gap. Through qualitative analysis, based on over seventy semi-structured in-depth interviews and document analysis, several case studies were examined in order to answer the following research questions:

i. What tensions between fragmentation and cohesion manifest themselves in various global governance systems?
ii. How do these tensions influence the governance capacity of these systems?
iii. What attempts have been made to handle these tensions and how are they able to contribute to the governance capacity?

Theorizing fragmentation and cohesion

In this dissertation, the concept of fragmentation signifies the diversity, multiplicity, and distribution of regulatory powers of the overall institutional settings of different international and transnational policy domains. The term cohesion functions as its counterpart, and regulatory coherence is understood as a system of governance in which policies are aligned resulting in concerted aims and actions. In absence of a non-fragmented, universal, and coordinated system of global governance structured around coherent sets of rules, full coherence on the global level is considered a theoretical construct. The pursuit for alignment as a way to create policy coherence has been analysed through the notions of harmonisation, equivalence, and metagovernance. The following case studies were central in this examination.

In the first case study on private fair labour arrangements (chapter 2), dimensions along which fragmentation and cohesion of governance systems can be studied have been identified. This resulted in a conceptual framework, which advances that relations within governance systems can be observed from three levels, namely the organisational, normative, and relational level. In this dynamic field, relations may develop into collaborations and partnerships, but may as well be adversarial. The conceptual framework served as an analytical basis to understand the regulatory system of global labour rights. Based on an investigation of the private transnational arrangements for fair labour, the fragmentation recognisable on the three dimensions were considered to impair the transformative capacity of the governance system of the fair labour issue field.

The second case (chapter 3) analysed the regionalisation of standards on organic production as a way in which public and private actors aim to bring more cohesion in the governance system on the global level. By examining all the existing initiatives from across the world, it evaluates if the promise of regionalisation can make the regulatory field of organic standards more cohesive and whether it is conducive for regional and international trade. Regionalisation as a system of governance is considered to contribute to normative coherence within the issue field while allowing for the regional adaptation. In this chapter, it is argued that ineffective enforcement and inadequate allocation of legal, political, and funding resources seriously imperil the institutional alignment necessary for international trade purposes.

The third case study (chapter 4) explored the concept of metagovernance. Based on a literature study, a conceptual framework was developed with a categorisation into four change mechanisms: (re)framing the (global) discourse, capacity building, networking and mainstreaming. Three private governance arrangements aspiring a key role in the advancement of sustainable production in diverse global value chains were analysed in terms of these mechanisms. It was found that the private uptake of meta-governance mechanisms for change are considered to relate to networking and capacity building, being mostly geared towards process management strategies, activating actors and resources, and arranging and facilitating interactions amongst stakeholders. In addition, efforts to frame the global sustainability discourse and mainstreaming of sustainability goals could be strengthened.

The fourth case study (chapter 5) examined the ways in which tensions in global governance systems manifest themselves through the quest for cohesion. It is postulated that the emerging tensions are dependent on the system characteristics of fragmentation in an issue field and are shaped by the ways in which cohesion is sought. By examining the global governance of labour rights and the global governance of organic production, it is found that a cause for these tensions, ironically, stem from non-alignment itself as particularly strategic coordination between actors is often lacking. Both case studies illustrate that there is ample room to seek partnerships and strengthen collaborative efforts. It is concluded that collaborative roadmaps for cohesion in global governance should not be treated alike, and require an issue based analysis to be functional for the governance systems itself.

What tensions between fragmentation and cohesion manifest themselves in various global governance systems?

The results of the various cases uncover that tensions between fragmentation and cohesion of global governance systems manifests themselves in several ways. The first tension area relates to the difficulties encountered in the relational aspect of governance in the transnational sphere. Specifically, while there is an understanding that collaboration and partnership can be beneficial, the governance arrangements have difficulties in arranging and maintaining collaborative efforts that can sustain and amplify their own working methods.

This ties in with another tension area between fragmentation and cohesion, namely, despite the quest for cohesion across the issue fields, the approach to achieving policy coherence is by and far not a settled issue amongst actors operating in them. As a result, the different working methods of the governance actors and their preferred ways for realising coherence is sometimes not only a non-shared endeavour, the preferred working methods also sustain or deepen the fragmented character of governance systems.

Another tension area between fragmentation and cohesion can be observed between inclinations toward either global or local methods. While an overarching, normative application of standards is often desired on the global level by transnational actors, these same actors stress the importance of the adaptation of standards to local characteristics as a way to safeguard their applicability and effectiveness.

How do these tensions influence the governance capacity of these systems?

Governance capacity was construed as an evaluative concept encompassing several elements. Beyond the applicability of the concept to the transnational and international sphere, we distinguished defining characteristics of governance capacity as the ability to contribute to policies, to implement policies, to put in certain resources, to achieve certain outcomes, and linked to the latter, the criterion of success. The influence of the tensions on the governance capacity of arrangements has been discussed in several ways throughout this dissertation. A general observation is that in most parts of the world, many transnational arrangements are tolerated to contribute and implement policies. An efficient and effective realisation of goals within issue fields are hard to achieve due to insufficiencies in (sharing) resources and concerted actions.

In the field of labour rights, while there is largely a desire for cooperation between the governance arrangements, the international and transnational system is largely characterised by the lack thereof. Next to the ILO, other international actors have increasingly started to define and adopt labour policies. Private arrangements largely focus on their own resources and capabilities, divide the issue field into different fractions through their focus on particular sectors, and compete for market share of businesses. An exploration into other intergovernmental organisations also revealed that formulations and reference to normative standards in provisions and policies differ, resulting from a reported lack of synergies for policy coherence. The characteristics of the governance system as a whole point to problems related to the fragmentation of the system. In this regard, the variety amongst the actors themselves, the lack of accountability, the uncoordinated efforts amongst various arrangements, and the weak links between and across the public and private divide, were all signified as unconducive to induce the envisioned changes.

The field of organic production is also rife of standards. An examination of regional organic standards showed that resources and capabilities are shared. Also in terms of alignment between standards, two normative standards – one from the public and another one from the private sphere – contribute to the regional standards development. The organic movement values diversity in standards if these are in line with organic values, and the endorsement of equivalency as a method allows standards to be adapted to the local context. The approach of public arrangements differs. Amongst major organic markets and developed nations, equivalence agreements exist but other actors must conform to the compliance regime. As a system of governance, the issue-field has many elements of collaborations and partnerships between both public and private actors. The system cannot however be described as cohesive due to the excluding characteristics of major public actors, and a divided view on the regulatory approach to achieving cohesion. The degree to which the sector is protected from fraudulent claims can be marked as quite effective, while regulatory complexity and concerns of Southern inclusivity remain challenging for the overall sector.

What attempts have been made to handle these tensions and how are they able to contribute to the governance capacity?

Various attempts have been undertaken by both public and private actors to handle the tensions arising from particularly fragmented state of governance affairs. In the empirical chapters, different approaches to reaching policy coherence were examined namely equivalence, harmonisation, common standard adoption, and metagovernance.

Under the equivalence model, actors accept each other’s standards as if they are the same. Differences in provisions and variations in formulations are allowed. For this reason, the purpose of equivalence lies within its functionality. One standard may be used as a normative standard which other standards need to be equivalent with. With harmonisation, actors bring different standards in line with one common standard or regulatory framework. This way, a system of standards operates efficiently without inconsistencies or inequalities. With adopting a common standard, actors agree that one standard applies to all parties. In principle, there is not a necessity to duplicate the standard. Metagovernance can bring in more cohesion in the activities and regulatory processes within an issue field through a wide array of guidance mechanisms. Metagovernors can therefore employ any of the policy coherence mechanisms previously described.

The way in which policy mechanisms contribute to governance capacity are multiple. First, they offer a means in which expectations of actors concerning policy coherence can be managed. Once an approach is agreed upon, it furthermore offers a way in which the governance system can be structured. In that sense, the policy mechanisms are indicative of strategic relationships. This ties in with another observation, which is that the policy mechanisms and the agreements struck reveal where power lies.

Analogously, the way a metagovernance organisation employs mechanisms for policy coherence discloses the governance capacity that the metagovernor itself has, as well as that of its members. Besides employing a variety of the mechanisms of change, metagovernors should employ one of the policy cohesion mechanisms, whether equivalence, harmonisation, or a common standard in order to be considered a metagovernor. In effect, this would contribute to the governance capacity of metagovernance arrangements and potentially to the governance system as a whole.

Implications and reflections

Fragmentation becomes problematic when the issues of sustainability and development become unmanageable. The concepts of fragmentation and cohesion within this study have been regarded normatively in so far that fragmentation was understood as being unconducive to realising societal goals as it may diffuse, or be counterproductive for, concerted aims and action. Contrarily, efforts for cohesion have been understood positively in so far that partnerships and cooperation can overcome the condition of fragmentation, enhance concerted aims and action, and result in regulatory coherence. When previously established values codified in laws and regulations are obscured or infringed upon, it is of crucial importance to understand the drivers and the accompanying agendas attached to them. While policy cohesion may be desired, the level and the extent to which will need to be determined. This can aid in the agenda to distinguish associated management efforts which tackle fragmentation. It is central then to navigate between fragmentation and cohesion in order to deal effectively with diversity and the tensions this poses on the governability of sustainable development. While universal coordination may be lacking, central and authoritative actors can take a key role in fostering policy coherence.

On basis of the research findings of this dissertation, we argue that the type of cohesion that should be sought depends on the characteristics of underlying fragmentation and the issue at stake. The case study on regional standards for organic production demonstrated that diversity is arguably a valued characteristic for the standards system. For this reason, equivalence as a mechanism for policy coherence is a suitable system. However, for labour rights, harmonisation or a common standard of core labour standards is preferable as regulatory fragmentation leads to the continued violation of labour rights. The obscuring of normative standards in other regulations and policies rekindles the ineffective labour rights protection system.

Three approaches may be instructive in navigating between fragmentation and cohesion. First, fragmentation can be approached as an organisational problem. In this approach, it is not only important to identify actors and their responsibilities, but also to suggest where responsibilities lie, or shift, redistribute, and reorganise responsibilities. Second, fragmentation can be approached as a problem emanating from normative issues. A general normative framework may be required. In case this is present, not only more stringent or encompassing standards can be called for, but also a normative framework on the mechanism of policy coherence. Third, fragmentation can be approached as a relational problem. Collaborations and interactions between governance actors need to be fostered. Interplay management then becomes an important concept in this regard, which refers to the conscious efforts by any relevant actors or group of actors, regardless of form and forum, to address institutional interaction and its effects. Each of these approaches may however bring forth tensions, such as those relating to legitimacy and accountability. Nonetheless, for steering societies across the world towards sustainable trajectories, systemic transformation remains one of the biggest governance challenges of our times.